The Duty Of Catholics To Vote

Catholic VP Versus Catholic VP

This article is from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League :

In many respects, the Catholic community today is divided into pro-life and social justice camps. That is unfortunate, and while this division can be overstated, it remains true that most Catholic activists sit in either one camp or the other; cross-over Catholics are a rare breed.

Paul Ryan represents the pro-life wing, and Joe Biden represents the social justice wing. Indeed, both exemplify the differences, and not just on the issue of abortion. For example, Ryan’s idea of freedom of choice commits him to supporting school vouchers; Biden’s notion of choice commits him to abortion rights. Ryan is opposed to reinventing the institution of marriage; Biden wants to expand marriage to include two people of the same sex.

The Catholic Church opposes abortion and gay marriage. On both of these issues, Biden disagrees with the Church. Biden’s defenders, e.g., Catholics who identify with social justice concerns, argue that Ryan’s budgetary prescriptions make him the dissident Catholic; his ideas are said to hurt the poor. This assumes, however, that there is a clear Catholic teaching on what constitutes the bestmeans to conquer poverty. There isn’t. For instance, fidelity to the Church’s preferential option for the poor can be realized by making a serious case to raise taxes, or to lower them. In effect, both Biden and Ryan can plausibly maintain that he is a champion of the poor. But only one, Ryan, can be identified as the champion of the unborn.

Not all policy issues are equal. Abortion is regarded by the Catholic Church as “intrinsically evil.” Moreover, the bishops’ conference has explicitly endorsed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This puts Biden at a decisive disadvantage in making the case that he better represents Catholic teachings.

I am really looking forward to seeing the VP debate in October.  

Happy Christmas From Youth Defence: The Gift of Life, Protect It

H/T LifeNews 

Catholic Culture Clash Links -- 10-12-11

Bless all those in our government for foiling a terror plot attempted by the Iranians.  Factions of the Iranian government had planned a terrorist attack on the Israeli and Saudi Arabian embassies in Washington and planned to assassinate the Saudi ambassador.  This certainly takes chutzpa on the part of the Iranian government. But, what do you expect when we have a president who is willing to compromise with our enemies?  Do you think that this terrorist attempt is an act of war?  My question is what options do we have to hold Iran accountable for their actions?  Attorney General Holder said that the U.S. is going to hold Iran accountable for its actions. How? Okay... Just heard they've decided to try more sanctions.  That's about par for this administration - continuing with their failed policies.  If we retaliated with military action would this fall under the Just War Doctrine?

What is your opinion of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters? Over at Teresamerica I posed this question: Are They Astroturf Useful Idiots Who Represent the Bums of America?

Apparently a Catholic participant named Tom Beaudoin has proposed that Catholics follow this model and apply it to the grievances they have with the Church.   Look at this paragraph from Tom's article: 


What would be the last straw that would make you join such a movement? Would it be the episcopal malfeasance and coverup known as the sexual abuse crisis, would it be the steady disaffiliation, deconversion, and detachment of your family members or friends from the faith as church structures, teachings, and practices become steadily more incredible in contemporary society, or would it be the failure of the church to practice in its internal affairs the justice it preaches to the world -- or something else?" 


From this paragraph do you get the gist that Tom and other occupiers want to "transform" the Church into  something its not in order to fit into secular society's cesspool of moral relativism?   I'm sure Tom wants to abandon Tradition. No Thanks!  The Church's teachings are infallible and indefectible. 


Archbishop Gomez encourages Catholics to boldly defend life.    He said, “This issue is deeply related to who we are as Catholics, to our identity as disciples of Jesus Christ.” 



“This issue is deeply related to who we are as Catholics, to our identity as disciples of Jesus Christ.”


He is calling the faithful to pray together as a Church during the month of October for an end to “every offense against the sanctity and dignity of the human person”. 


Archbishop Gomez continued “Our religion, in a beautiful and mysterious way, is deeply identified with human life,” he said. “What other world religion remembers the time when its founder was in his mother’s womb?”


“Biblical religion is a religion in which family and children, and the promise of children, plays a big role,” he said. “Think of God’s words to the prophet Jeremiah: ‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.’”


“An unborn child was the first to bear witness to Jesus! God loved us so much that he entered into this world as each one of us did — through the womb of a mother.”
“Jesus Christ took our human nature and spent nine months in the womb!” he underscored. “Why would he do this? To show us that human life is sacred. To show us that every life is precious to God.
To show us that each of us is a child of God who is loved in a special way by our Father in heaven.”

He went onto explain that Christians have been defending the right to life “from the very beginnings of the Church” and “why we defend for the right of every child to be born.”



Archbishop Gomez continued saying this, “This is why we defend the rights of the old and the sick to be cared for with love and compassion until their natural death.This is why we strive to preserve the mystery of marriage as the union of man and woman in the plan of God.  And this is why we strive for justice for the immigrant and the worker; for the imprisoned, the hungry and the homeless. This is who we are as Catholics. We are a people of life and for life.” 

Fr. Frank Pavone Speaks Out On Kresta In The Afternoon

H/T KrestaintheAfternoon 

Is there an attack on the pro-life movement from within?

It certainly seems so.

First, we have the news that Bishop Blaise Cupich of Spokane has given out marching orders to the priests and seminarians in his diocese to stop being active in certain pro-life activities and to stop promoting pro-life activism.  If you look at Bishop Cupich's previous actions and statements on pro-life issues he seems to be a staunch pro-life bishop so why all of a sudden would he order something which is so hostile to the pro-life movement? That is extremely puzzling to me.  If he is so pro-life why would he forbid his seminarians and priests from participating in sidewalk counseling, promoting 40 Days For Life and their activities, or their  participation in 40 Days For Life?  This just doesn't make sense.

Mark Shea says I don't get Bp. Cupich.  Neither do I.  He posted this from one of his readers:



Dear Friends,


We recently learned about a troubling decision regarding pro-life activities by our bishop, His Excellency Blase Cupich of the Diocese of Spokane.


I am emailing you because you are a parishioner in the diocese, or have a connection to the diocese, or you have the ability to make public this regrettable decision.


Bishop Cupich has informed all of his priests and seminarians that they cannot:
- pray outside of Planned Parenthood
- promote or organize peaceful protest outside Planned Parenthood in their parishes (naming 40 Days for Life specifically)
- or allow pro-life material to be distributed in their parishes unless it is published by the Washington State Conference of Catholic Bishops or the USCCB--who, ironically, support 40 DFL.


This information came to us directly from multiple Spokane priests. We were also told by these priests that Bishop Cupich identifies himself as pro-life, but disagrees with the "tactic" of praying outside of abortion clinics. The reason he gave for his decision is that he does not want his priests being identified with "extreme" pro-life persons.


We know you all understand the great concern that comes when a bishop is 1) not overtly supportive of pro-life activities and 2) will not allow his priests to fight for the pro-life cause by praying and giving witness to the sanctity of human life outside of Planned Parenthood.


My wife and I have written a letter that we will be sending to the bishop tomorrow and have copied the text below. I am asking that you also do what you can to help him change his mind, especially since we begin the fall campaign of 40 Days for Life in a few weeks.


Let us all pray for Bishop Cupich that he has a conversion of heart on this issue.


May God bless each of you as you fight for life!
****
Most Reverend Blase J. Cupich
Diocese Of Spokane
1023 W. Riverside Avenue
Spokane, WA 99210


Your Excellency:
We have recently learned of facts that are highly disturbing to us. We are seeking clarification from your office.
We have been told that you have forbidden priests and seminarians of the Diocese of Spokane from praying in front of Planned Parenthood, participating in 40 Days for Life, organizing peaceful protest outside of Planned Parenthood (either as a part of 40 Days for Life or otherwise), and endorsing/allowing communication of pro-life activities involving the above two methods in a parish.
We also learned that no pro-life literature may be distributed in a parish except for those produced by the Washington State Conference of Catholic Bishops or by the USCCB. A few months ago, we learned that you declined to endorse 40 Days for Life—something Bishop Skylstad, your predecessor, did indeed endorse. Even the USCCB supports and promotes this organization.
We were concerned, but hoped you had a good reason for your decision, and that it might be a misunderstanding. With this new information, we find it hard to believe it is a misunderstanding.
As members of the Diocese of Spokane, we do not understand why our bishop, the man entrusted by the Church and by Christ to lead the flock, would not allow a peaceful protest of the destruction of human lives. The pro-life issue, which has been championed and endorsed by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and the USCCB, is the most important of our age.
In the last 38 years, since abortion became legal in the United States, over 50 million children have been lost (that we know of) through the horror of abortion. While we are hoping that your denial of priests to pray for the unborn outside of the very place where children are murdered is a matter of disagreement on tactics, it seems as though you do not support the movement at all; again, we hope that is not true.
However, we do not understand how a bishop could not endorse praying the rosary, Our Lady’s prayer, for the sake of the unborn, their mothers and fathers and the workers, at the very scene of their deaths. Prayer and peaceful witness are the only ways that we will win the battle of converting hearts to believe in the sanctity of every human life. If what we heard is true, telling priests not to pray outside of abortion clinics would be equivalent to telling a priest in Germany or Poland that they should not pray outside of Death Camps. The same tragedy that happened in Germany is happening in our country today, but too many people are standing by without defending the unborn.
We need our priests and our bishops, our spiritual leaders, to take on the cause of defending the unborn! We need our priests and bishops to unabashedly proclaim the sanctity of human life! We need our priests and bishops to witness to the women who are going into a clinic and are in need of a friendly face! If they don’t lead the people of God, how will we win this battle for the lives of the unborn? How do we tell the world that the Catholic Church is the most pro-life faith when our bishops are not willing to sacrifice for the life of a baby?
We are not necessarily asking you to pray outside of Planned Parenthood or be the leader of 40 Days for Life, although we wish you would desire to do so.
But we are asking you to clarify why you would not allow your priests and seminarians to take part in this essential part of the pro-life movement. We are also asking you to publicly endorse 40 Days for Life, an important part of our witness in this diocese each year.
It saddens us that our new bishop is not overtly pro-life, let alone that he will not allow his priests and seminarians to express their own pro-life convictions.
Know that we will pray for you as the shepherd of our diocese. However, if this decision remains in effect, we will not be able to support you financially. We will be rescinding our 2011 pledge to the Annual Catholic Appeal, additionally.
It is essential that the Catholic Church be the beacon of hope in this time where our society finds it acceptable to murder innocent human life by the millions each year.
May God bless you in your ministry and give you wisdom as you lead our diocese.


Now here is the second attack on the pro-life movement. Father Frank Pavone's Bishop is preventing him from running Priests For Life.  Apparently his bishop, Bishop Zurek of Amarillo, has some financial concerns with regards to Priests for Life.  But is that the real reason or is there really some ego turf war going in with the bishop?

This is where the bishop's letter gets personal. 
In his relationship to his bishop ordinaries, Father Pavone has gradually lost his need to show appropriate obedience to his Bishop. It seems that his fame has caused him to see priestly obedience as an inconvenience to his unique status and an obstacle to the possible international scope of his ministry. I would venture to say that the supreme importance that he has attributed to his PFL ministry and the reductionist attitude toward the diocesan priesthood has inflated his ego with a sense of self-importance and self-determination. This attitude has strained his relationship with me and has give me the impression that I cannot invoke obedience with him because he is famous. It is my desire to help him readjust his priestly bearing through spiritual and theological renewal in order to recapture that essential priestly hallmark of respect and obedience. It is also my desire to strengthen Father Pavone’s sense of communio sacramentalis with me so that he may be fortified with a healthy zeal to live in an authentic way his sacramental gift and mystery as a priest of Jesus Christ.


If you judged it to be prudent, I would like to ask that you would inform the Christian faithful under your care to consider withholding donations to the PFL until the issues and concerns are settled.


Taking this opportunity to express my esteem and to ask for your prayers, I am,


Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Patrick J. Zurek, STL, DD
Bishop of Amarillo

You can read the entire letter here.

Here is Father Pavone's official response on this matter:

STATEN ISLAND, NY – Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, has issued the following statement:


“For the past several years, my Ordinary, the Most Reverend Patrick Zurek, Bishop of Amarillo, has given me permission to do the full-time pro-life work that I have done since 1993. In 2005, I made a public promise in a Church ceremony in Amarillo, presided over by a Vatican Cardinal, that this full-time pro-life work would be a lifetime commitment. That’s a commitment I promise to fulfill without wavering.


“This past week, however, I received a letter from the Bishop insisting that I report to the Diocese this Tuesday, September 13 and, for the time being, remain only there.


“I am very perplexed by this demand. Despite that, because I am a priest of the diocese of Amarillo, I will be obedient and report there on the appointed date, putting the other commitments that are on my calendar on hold until I get more clarity as to what the bishop wants and for how long. Meanwhile, I continue to retain all my priestly faculties and continue to be a priest in “good standing” in the Church. The bishop does not dispute this fact. Rather, he has said that he thinks I am giving too much priority to my pro-life work, and that this makes me disobedient to him. He also has claimed that I haven’t given him enough financial information.


“Now, although Bishop Zurek is my Ordinary, he is not the bishop of Priests for Life. Each of our staff priests has his own Ordinary, and the organization has an entire Board of Bishops. We keep them all informed of our activities, and of our financial audits.


“I want to say very clearly that Priests for Life is above reproach in its financial management and the stewardship of the monies it receives from dedicated pro-lifers, raised primarily through direct mail at the grassroots level. To this end, Priests for Life has consistently provided every financial document requested by Bishop Zurek, including annual financial audits, quarterly reports, management documents—even entire check registers! In fact, on June 20, 2011, Priests for Life received the results of its independent audit examination for the year ended December 31, 2010. The organization's auditors issued an unqualified audit opinion indicating that the financial statements "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Priests for Life, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America". This marks the tenth consecutive year that the organization's auditors have provided a 'clean' audit opinion, when reporting on the respective year's financial statements. Priests for Life has been completely transparent with Bishop Zurek and any other bishops who have requested information regarding our management and finances. Indeed, we have 21 bishops and cardinals who sit on our Advisory Board, and they are kept fully informed about our finances.


“Therefore, in the interest of preserving my good reputation as well as protecting the valuable work done by the Priests for Life organization, I have begun a process of appeal to the Vatican. This process aims to correct any mistaken decisions of the bishop in my regard and to protect my commitment to full-time pro-life activity for my whole life. We are very confident that the Vatican will resolve this matter in a just and equitable fashion. Because of this confidence, we are not currently making any changes in any positions at Priests for Life, or in any of our projects and plans.


“I also want to point out that, according to the canon law of the Catholic Church, because I have begun this process of appeal to Rome, the Bishop’s order that I return to Amarillo has been effectively suspended. Nevertheless, because of my great respect for this Bishop and my commitment to be fully obedient at all times, I am reporting to Amarillo this Tuesday, in hopes that I can sort this problem out with the Bishop in a mutually agreeable and amicable way.


“I would like to note that, unlike other organizations, which have sometimes been critical of the Church hierarchy or other institutions within the Church, Priests for Life has always remained 100% supportive of the Bishops, never criticizing any Church official, and always acting as a megaphone for the Bishops’ pro-life statements. Moreover, we serve dioceses and their priests and laity without asking for any speakers’ fees, and distribute millions of pieces of pro-life literature to dioceses completely free of charge. We do not seek parish collections, and we work to reinforce in each diocese the local pastoral plan which the bishop wants to implement for pro-life activities.


“We are committed to going forward with that same spirit, regardless of the recent action taken by Bishop Zurek.


“In the interest of full transparency, I would like to make it known that I do not receive any salary or financial remuneration from either the Diocese of Amarillo or from Priests for Life. Priests for Life, as a Private Association of the Christian Faithful, does provide for my residence and the expenses associated with the ministry, but these expenses are very small. Though, as a diocesan priest, I have never taken a vow of poverty, I have basically chosen to live in that fashion in solidarity with the pre-born children we are trying to protect—who are the poorest of the poor.


“I want to be clear that I do not harbor any ill will towards the Bishop of Amarillo, nor do I foster suspicions about his motives. I am merely confused by his actions. It is impossible for me to believe that there is no place in the Church for priests to exercise full-time ministry in the service of the unborn. We do it for the sick, the poor, the hungry, and the imprisoned. But where in the Church is the place where a priest can exercise the same kind of full-time ministry for the children in the womb? That is the question that is at the heart of my own calling.


“I am confident that we will be able to resolve this difficulty soon, without any harm to either my own reputation and without any slowdown of the valuable pro-life work we do at Priests for Life.”


Here is an interview with Fr. Frank Pavone:

H/T LisaGraas 


Let's pray that both Bishop Zurek and Bishop Blaise Cupich hearts will be changed.  Let us also keep the priests and seminarians in the Diocese of Spokane and Father Frank Pavone in our prayers as they deal with these tenuous circumstances. God Bless. 

Priests Force Rockford Abortion Mill To "Cry Uncle!" and Close For The Day

God Bless these priests in their mission to save innocent unborn babies.  

From Pro-Life Corner:

Rockford, IL – (ProLifeCorner.com) – On 7-15-2011 – by James - Last year seven Catholic Priests gathered around the Rockford abortion mill and prayed prayers of exorcism.  On that day two mothers choose life; the number of abortions fell by two thirds, and the abortion mill landlord was so unsettled that he stayed outside his abortion mill while the Priests were praying.  This year the powers that be inside the mill were taking no chances.  Instead of trying to remain open in the face of such spiritual power, they found it easier to close their doors for the day.  

The abortion mill landlord Wayne Webster, who seems to have a pathological hatred for Catholic Priests and has a history of skulking away from the abortion mill grounds when Priests are praying prayers of exorcism outside his killing center, was nowhere to be seen.  In his absence he did leave some quite vulgar signs in his abortion mill windows attacking Priests.

 

On this day in Rockford, the presence of Christ through His Priests and His people could be tangibly felt and experienced outside the building where over 60,000 human beings have been murdered.

 

On this day in Rockford, Satan fled; Christians stood united in faith and love, and no children had to face a brutal, vicious death inside the Rockford abortion mill. 

 

 Those inside the Rockford abortion mill, who have used demonic symbols such as devils masks in its windows, rubber chickens on crucifixes, and signs mocking God and celebrating the deaths of children by abortion, folded under the spiritual power of these men of God.

 

 

Let us pray for these priests as well as other pro-lifers as they battle against the evils of Satan. 

An Interview With Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum

I am highly impressed with Rick Santorum.  He is pro-life.  He is Catholic. He understands the Muslim problem.  He is a man who truly believes in family values.  He believes in American exceptionalism and he believes in the American people. He is very knowledgeable on matters of foreign policy.  He fought for fiscal sanity in the past and will fight to restore fiscal sanity to America.  Here is his interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez of CNS:


CNA: When you speak to a group like the Faith and Freedom Coalition, like you did this weekend, or go to work at a place like the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where you have been a fellow, does it feel a bit like coming home? On paper, at least, are faith and freedom and ethics and public policy a good summation of why you ever bother with politics?

Sen. Rick Santorum: Yes, absolutely. I am certainly compelled by my faith to help engage in making this a better country, supporting a culture of life, and confronting the enemies of freedom.

Faith and freedom are dependent on one another, and our founders understood this. Freedom was meant for a virtuous people, and virtue is forged out of faith. Without faith, without religion as an active agent in our personal and public life, we will not be able to maintain the freedoms that we have been so uniquely blessed with. The two options to freedom rooted in faith are a spiraling into moral and cultural anarchy, or the replacement of internal restraint with external restraint, which is called totalitarianism.

CNA: You frequently talk about having a narrative that will move the ball forward. What do you mean by this? What’s the narrative? What ball?

Sen. Santorum: The narrative is “freedom under God.” The narrative of “why” America was established is found in the Declaration of Independence – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Sadly, many of our leaders are asking the question “What is America?” This is not the first time. In his day, Lincoln said we didn’t have a good definition of liberty and were in great need of one. Freedom and equality, properly understood, as our Founders understood those terms, have been lost. By moving the ball forward, I mean that we have to renew our understanding of the Founders’ vision, return to it, and own its implications in our public and private lives.

Under our current leadership, the freedom of the individual has been subordinated to the growth of the government. That’s the European model – not ours. People talk of teachable moments. There’s never been a greater one than now.

CNA: So, where will America be after four years of Rick Santorum as president? Because with your announcement Monday, that’s what you’re aiming for.

Sen. Santorum: America will be well down the road to fiscal sanity and stability. The American private sector will be thriving. Decisions will be returned from Washington bureaucrats to main streets and homes. The American worker will have job opportunities in a robust economy spurred by growth-oriented fiscal, regulatory, and monetary policy. The most vulnerable among us will have a vocal and consistent leader in the White House with an administration dedicated to their protection. We will be friends to our allies and restore a lot of essential trust that has been lost. And our enemies will be confronted as enemies, not appeased as if we are the weak party and the supplicant. Both our friends and enemies will know where America stands. Fundamentally, faith in American greatness and in Americans themselves will be restored.

CNA: Why do you want to be president of the United States?

Sen. Santorum: I want to be president because I believe the American people deserve a leader who believes in them. I think 2008 was an experiment where a lot of people wanted a president they could believe in. That experiment failed.

My sense is people want a leader who trusts the American people, one who promotes rather than hampers the free enterprise system, one who believes in the growth of our private sector economy not the growth of the public sector government. In short, I want to be president because we have a great many things we need to get right – from national security and foreign policy to the economy to domestic social issues – and the current president has gotten almost all of those things wrong.

CNA: You’ve never been an executive? How are you qualified?

Sen. Santorum: By experience and by temperament. I’ve served the public in a lot of different ways, but one way is by exhibiting strong and decisive leadership, with a willingness to take positions that may not have been politically expedient, but were for the common good.

I’ve been elected a member of the House, elected a member of the Senate, and was elected to the leadership in the Senate. And in those roles, I was able to write, originate, and push substantive, meaningful legislation – from welfare reform in 1996 to the Syria Accountability Act to the Iran Freedom and Support Act to the Born Alive Infant Protect Act to the ban on partial-birth abortion.

Those bills, and many, many others, weren’t popular at first, but through work and talk and persuasion, I helped get them passed, and more often than not with bipartisan support. I look forward to putting my record before the American people. And of course, nothing qualifies you more for public service than a household of seven children.

CNA: What are you most proud of from your congressional record? Welfare reform?

Sen. Santorum: All of these things have been important. I think what I’m most proud of is the fact that I was known as someone who was willing to take on the tough issues and not trim my views or my votes for convenience or to appease any one constituency at the expense of another. In Pennsylvania, populated by one of the most elderly electorates in the nation (and seniors vote!), I was willing to address entitlement reform, and almost lost my first senate race because I was talking about the inevitable insolvency of Social Security and the fiscal instability of Medicare, Peggy Noonan once wrote about me that my style has been “to face what his colleagues hope to finesse.”

CNA: You were working on reforming health-care before it was cool, weren’t you?

Sen. Santorum: Yes. I’ve been at it a long time. As both a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee in the 1990s, I was one of the first pushing for healthcare savings accounts and for reform of Medicare.

Health care is one of those rare issues that implicates each and every one of us, and America has been blessed with the most advanced system that the world has ever seen. We have been incredibly innovative and successful in providing effective and quality care. But the choices have to be left in the hands of patients and health care providers for this to continue.

The “new order” that makes us dependent on government is not just a reorienting of our health care system, but a vast effort to make every American dependent on the government for their very lives.

CNA: Is your impression people still primarily associate you with abortion and marriage?

Sen. Santorum: Some do. I think the Left does. That’s fine. I don’t shrink from that, I’m proud of it. The protection of the vulnerable, whether children in the womb or the elderly at the end of their lives, is something to be proud of. The defense of some of our most important institutions the world has ever known – marriage and the family – why should anyone be embarrassed about standing for them?

But I also have a long record on tax, financial, and entitlement reform. I worked with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on issues of inner city, rural, and global poverty. How can a society survive with three of our four of its inner city children are born out of wedlock? It’s probably just harder for some on the other side to understand those issues and, thus, less easy for them to criticize me for them.

The same is true on national security and foreign policy. I have been a leader not just while in the Senate with legislation like the Syria Accountability Act and the Iran Freedom and Support Act, but have devoted the past four years of my life to a program at a think tank to address the rise of radical Islamism, and its anti-American allies such as Venezuela.

CNA: What can you reasonably move forward on on those issues as president?

Sen. Santorum: All of them. I think everything should be in play because everything is in play. I don’t separate these issues as if they were legs of a stool. And the president is uniquely in a position to balance them.

CNA: Why shouldn’t those who disagree with you – especially on marriage and abortion – consider that a threat?

Sen. Santorum: If it is considered a threat to stand up for the values and virtues, the building blocks and ballasts, that have helped us secure the blessing of liberty, then that is our opponents’ problem not mine. I think the vast majority of Americans support life and marriage and our national defense and the idea of free enterprise. My question back to you is: “Who and what are the real threats to our more perfect union?”

I have a long history of bipartisan working relationships on Capitol Hill. As president, I would actually be able to uniquely work with my former colleagues, regardless of party and the particular split of Congress at the time of my election if there is one. I actually think my background as a federal legislator for 16 years will help in the success in forging consensus and moving the ball forward. I saw how poorly some of the previous administrations understood and treated members of Congress, and I certainly will not let my staff fall prey to the arrogance that can often overtake people who work at the White House.

CNA: I know it’s not cool to ask candidates about other potential candidates but: One of the only people who might begin to understand what it might be like to be Rick Santorum is Sarah Palin. She’s done stuff she doesn’t get credit for. She’s hated with a passion. Is this all about social issues with the two of you?

Sen. Santorum: I don’t think so. I could name other political leaders who support probably 99 percent of what Sarah supports but are not in the crosshairs of the elites. I think it’s something more. I think for Sarah it’s that she doesn’t do things the way most politicians do them, doesn’t speak the way most politicians speak and, yes, if you are an outspoken conservative woman, that’s going to attract more criticism as well.

That’s been the case in our movement for a very long time; look at how conservative female politicians and columnists and radio hosts are criticized – strong women that don’t tow the party line get attacked. The good news is they tend to handle it better and it seems to faze them less and less. I am proud to be in a party that has a field that includes strong women like Sarah and Michele Bachmann.

As for me, I think it’s that I’ve led on the issues, I’ve been out front on them, and haven’t just quietly checked the boxes or kept my head down hoping not to attract notice. It’s the man – or the woman – with the football that gets tackled after all.

CNA: What do you hear most often as you go to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina? From conservative activists, and perhaps, others?

Sen. Santorum: They want to know how it is we could lose so much so quickly. I don’t think very many people saw the speed with which President Obama could dismantle the economy and economic freedom or how quickly he would be able to consolidate power in Washington.

We haven’t had liberal Democrats in power in a while and I think a lot of people have forgotten how they govern and what they truly believe. Ronald Reagan used to say that freedom is only one generation away from extinction. With all the powers and levers of government now, that timeline has been accelerated. And it surprises people.

The government was designed to help people thrive and reach their God-given potentials. Most people know that intuitively and they speak a lot about how so much of that has been lost – taken, actually. In a country dedicated to free enterprise and entrepreneurism, it has become frustrating to people that the government has come to do the exact opposite of making life and work easier; it now makes things harder on people and business, and it does so all in order to strengthen the state not the individual. And this at a time that the competition from around the world has increased, especially from China.

This is what bothers people the most. Just at the time when we need to unleash American ingenuity and entrepreneurship, the very things that made us a great economic and military superpower, we are being shackled. These are the sentiments I note the most as I travel around the country.

CNA: Why is radical jihad such an issue for you?

Sen. Santorum: Because it’s such an issue for the jihadists. To borrow from Lincoln, they truly do want to blow out all the moral lights around us. Why don’t we believe what they say they believe?

They want to destroy Israel, they want to destroy America, they want to destroy the West, and they have no compunction about killing as many innocents as possible along the way. They are serious about it. They tell us this is what they want to do and they act on it, and our leaders choose to not believe them or see it.

The reason it’s an issue for me is I take the enemy at his word and action. To paraphrase (former British prime minister) Tony Blair, we have to have the same cultural resolve as the enemy, maybe even stronger. I worry about that. I’m not sure we fully appreciate the threat yet. And I think too many actually adopt at least a part of the Islamist complaint and grievance against us – that their wrath is somehow our fault. It is not.

CNA: Are we completely unaware of what’s going on in our backyard in this regard?

Sen. Santorum: Almost completely. I was talking about Venezuela and Hugo Chavez long before most. In fact, I was criticized in my 2006 race for being alarmist by raising the possibility that Iran might be working with Venezuela to plant terrorist cells in our back yard. You look at his alliances with Iran now, you look at Hezbollah in Latin America now, and then you look at the weakened state of our border, yes. If we don’t wake up ourselves we are going to be woken up by others. I have been saying this for years now, and working to wake Americans up. My weekly alert was called “The Gathering Storm” for a reason.

CNA: Do you ever feel a bit like a man without a state, having lost your last senatorial election as dramatically as you did?

Sen. Santorum: Not really. You learn more from loss than from success. Not that that’s what you hope for, obviously. But I think loss makes greater leaders, loss is a great teacher. I was proud of how I campaigned in 2006, and overwhelmed with the support and volunteers who joined the campaign to help. We never abandoned our principles or trimmed our views – I think even my critics will say that’s at least one thing about me they’ve admired. And I honestly don’t know of anything differently I could have done in 2006 to have succeeded.

But I’ve never felt like a man without a state. I’ve been privileged to be doing a lot of things since 2006 that I think – and hope – have been helpful to the American cause. I’ve worked at a think tank promoting issues of national security, I was privileged to have a regular newspaper column, I’ve been the Friday host of Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” radio show, I’ve been able to travel more of the country and talk to more and more people. I think it’s all made me wiser, actually, and given me new and better appreciations for and about the whole country. Maybe most importantly, loss makes you more humble.

CNA: Why are you doing this? You can’t possibly win, can you?

Sen. Santorum: If I didn’t think I could win I would not be doing this. I think my record, my experience, my achievements, and my worldview stand in bold contrast to a lot of others. I’ve been written off and underestimated in almost every election I’ve run. That’s fine. Reagan once said there’s a difference between the box office and the critics – I try not to pay too much attention to the critics. The stakes are too high.

CNA: How are you doing this with a sick toddler and kids who need to go to college? It’s not like you’ve ever made a ton of money at anything.

Sen. Santorum: I have always believed if you work hard, keep your mind focused on the important things, and try not to worry about the future, it will usually take care of itself. That’s one of the things that has made this country so special – barriers can be great, but hard work and resolve usually pays itself off.

By the way, I think a great many Americans think we are losing this very thing because of the way the government has put so many burdens in place, because of the national debt we’ve been accumulating, and because the individual and the citizen have been downgraded as the government has been more and more empowered. But in general, I’m not someone who wants to look back someday and say I didn’t do everything I could to help keep America safe, secure, and prosperous – and not just for myself. In fact it’s for my children that I’ve stayed in the public fray.

CNA: What do you tell your daughter, Elizabeth, a student at the University of Dallas, when she reads what folks say about you? When she Googles your name?

Sen. Santorum: I don’t have to tell her much. She knows that personal vilification is often the price you have to pay for standing up strong for the right principles. She knows what the First Amendment is. Others have taken slings and arrows too, that’s just part of the cost of conviction. She’s an adult and gets all that.

CNA: Aren’t the kids sick of politics? Isn’t your wife, Karen?

Sen. Santorum: Politics at its best, campaigns at their best, should be and can be fun. Meeting people, hearing the concerns of fellow citizens, working hard to try and do something to better the country and peoples’ lives – that’s not something to get sick of. Yes, there are always challenges and trade offs, but service in the cause of the important is service not to ever regret. I couldn’t do anything in my career without Karen and the family – they are my biggest supporters and helpers and motivators. I couldn’t and wouldn’t do this without their blessings and support. We do this, we do everything, together.

CNA: When you talk about being “called” to do this – to run for president – it can make people nervous. Like you have a Messianic complex. We may have that already in the White House, some have certainly suggested. What do you mean when you say you believe you are called to do this now, and to run like you can and will win?

Sen. Santorum: We all have callings. They can be vocational and they can be personal. … I am also called to be a devoted father and husband. The idea of calling is something we should all embrace. It gives us purpose in what we do and how we live. Lincoln spoke of the reverence for America as our “political religion.” I’d like to think it’s mine, too.

A call to duty on behalf of the country shouldn’t make people nervous, it should actually motivate each and every one of us, whatever our work on behalf of our country. The question people should ask, whether it’s about me or President Obama or anyone else, is what do they intend to do with that call to duty. What are their ends? And are their means constitutional?

As for a messianic complex in the president, I leave that question to others. It’s just not something I think about. What I think about is what he is doing with his power and what we should be doing in contrast. As for me, all I’ve ever asked is that people engage me and join me in the debate about what I’ve stood for and proposed. The essence of our democracy is debate and discussion. I simply want to have more of that on behalf of our country. I don’t think there’s anything messianic about that.

CNA: How important is being Catholic in all of this?

Sen. Santorum: Supremely. You asked about my family earlier and I said I couldn’t do anything without them. I couldn’t do anything without my faith either. I think that’s true for a lot of people. An overwhelming percentage of Americans are religious, and religion matters to their daily lives. I am no different. I’m someone who needs and relies on God. I feel and see his work everywhere around me, every day. And I couldn’t imagine life without him.

I actually believe that Americans want our leaders to have a reliance on God. It shows that they are humble, and understand that they are under a higher authority. And we want leaders who respect religious conviction, not demean it. We want leaders who understand that faith is essential to the sustenance of democracy, that faith is an agent for good, that it protects the weak and defenseless, that it motives people to confront injustice.

Look at all of the great social movements in America over the centuries; most were led by religious leaders. And importantly, it is not just generic faith in God, but the understanding of the world that my Catholicism gives me – the world as it should be, an understanding of human nature and the ordering of our common affairs – that is important to me as a public official. Being religious, and my being consciously Catholic, is something to be proud of.

Life Begins at Conception

One Father's Courage to Trust in God

Imagine you are a father or a mother who has been out of work for over a year and a half, about to run out of unemployment benefits, and who has been offered employment with a decent salary...but (here's the kicker) this job goes against your moral beliefs.  Would you take the job because you need the money to provide your family with all the necessities of life or would you follow your moral ethics, in what you know is right in your heart and soul and tell the employer no, sorry I can't in good conscience accept this offer for employment?

 Tim's unemployment benefits were about to run out when he received a call -  a job offer from his local union - a wonderful opportunity to be a foreman for at least 11 months.  Then, unfortunately, Tim found out that the job was to build a Planned Parenthood Clinic.  He told the man that he couldn’t accept the job.  The union rep tried to smooth it over saying they don’t know if abortions were going to be performed there for sure.  Tim stuck to his guns and told the union rep no, that there is no way that he in good conscience could help construct a building that would be used to perform abortions, to murder unborn babies.

Tim has a wife and kids to provide for and yet he was courageous enough to stand on principle.  He said a resounding no to aiding in a project that would eventually facilitate butchers who murder unborn babies because women believe in the “choice” to kill their children out of pure selfishness.  My thoughts and prayers are with Tim and his family, that he may find ethical work that is in line with his beliefs.

Decision inspires homily 

My Thoughts on "12th and Delaware"

I recently viewed the documentary "12th and Delaware" and I recommend that every pro-lifer watch this film. It is extremely interesting.  While on and off throughout the film some things are skewed to favor the pro-choice stance IMO the documentary for the most part is pretty fair to the pro-life side.  I would give the film a 60/40 ratio for skewed favorability toward the pro-choice position.  The documentary explores the happenings inside both a woman's clinic and a crisis pregnancy center in Ft. Pierce, FL which are literally across the street from one another.  The movie does give the impression that abortionists and those who are pro-choice are victims of violence and/or threats more so than those who work in the pro-life movement.  Plus, the film makers seem to want to give the impression that deception occurs within the pro-life movement while it doesn't occur within the pro-abortion movement, which is an utterly false notion.  You will see that on the woman's clinic's sign it doesn't even have that they perform abortions while the documentary focuses more on the fact that the crisis pregnancy center doesn't have a sign noting that they don't perform abortions.  The film especially focuses on the fact that a number of people get confused and mistake the crisis pregnancy center for the abortion clinic because they look so much alike.  While this may be considered deceptive to a degree I would call it a great strategy since it has given the center many opportunities to save a life due to mistaken identity of the buildings. Plus, where is the best place to change someone's mind and stop an abortion from taking place?  Outside an abortion mill or as close as you can possibly get to the clinic.  This film reveals the pro-aborts way of thinking.  Its pretty backwards thinking when you think pro-lifers are more dangerous than abortionists or those working in the abortion mill.  What is more violent then killing another human being?  It really is quite sickening.

The first you tube video below gives a review of "12th and Delaware".  You can tell on which side of the abortion issue the interviewer and the two film producers are on.  In the second video Ann Lotierzo, who runs the pregnancy center featured in the documentary, reveals how the film producers deceived her regarding the filming of the documentary.   In the third you tube video Ann and Father tell of the dangers of being a pro-lifer and how the movie avoided relaying that reality.

Review of "12th and Delaware" abortion documentary


Ann Lotierzo talks about the deceit of "12th & Delaware"




Fr. Euteneuer and Ann discuss the movie "12th and Delaware" and danger on the corner

Has the Term 'Pro-Life' Become Passe?

Leo Hunt poses the question (entire article posted here), "Is it time to dump the term 'pro-life'?"  First, Leo thinks that the pro-life movement is failing to win hearts and minds.  I disagree.  There is evidence to the contrary.  I know that "contraception," in vitro fertilization, and experimentation that kills human embryos is the devaluing of human life and that it is loosely connected to abortion but I don't think that one can conclude legitimately that due to the ascent of these new challenges to the pro-life movement that pro-lifers are losing the abortion argument or even the pro-life argument.  Since the pro-life movement has mainly been focused on the abortion issue for the past 38 years and not the other aforementioned newer threats to life I believe in the area of abortion that the pro-life movement is in fact winning hearts and minds.  It has taken much time for the tide to turn and polls to show that 50% of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life.  It was only a little over 6 months ago that 47% of citizens stated in a poll that they were pro-life.  That is a 3% jump in just the past 7 or 8 months. Personally, I think that is pretty amazing!

What if some of those polled who claim to be "pro-life" believe that it is morally acceptable to have an abortion in cases of incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother?  They may not be 100% pro-life but I wonder what percentage of those who consider themselves to be "pro-life" were "pro-choice" under all circumstances before today?  I say Thank God for small miracles.  I believe that over time that those citizens can be talked to and persuaded to follow additional pro-life principles.  It sounds like Leo is letting pessimism takeover and seems like he is writing off small miracles.  Conversion can come in stages or in little spurts. We need to keep praying for these people to continue their pro-life conversion process.

Since Leo thinks that defenders of preborn human children are failing he asks 'Could part of the problem be with the very phrase "pro-life"?'  Should the term "pro-life" be refined to solely refer to protecting vulnerable unborn babies instead of the term in a broad manner additionally referring to being anti-war and anti-death penalty along with protecting unborn babies?  Personally, I think this is yet another term that has been hijacked by the liberals, specifically liberal Catholics, and perverted in order to assuage their guilt when they vote for pro-abort democratic politicians.  They want to relativize in their own minds that their politician is partly pro-life by perverting the term to mean something which it really doesn't.  Leo has suggested "pro-life" change to either pro-personhood, pro-human child, or pro-child. While I don't think that we are losing the pro-life argument, and even if I did I most certainly wouldn't conclude the cause of our losing the battle was due to the term "pro-life" I do think that it might be a good idea to change the term to specifically focus on the unborn child.  I believe the name change could help prevent the catholic Left from using the pro-life cover story in order to assuage their guilty conscience to legitimize the fact that they voted for pro-abortion or anti-child democratic politicians.

Today is the March For Life

As I watch the March for Life live on Fox News I am so happy to see so many pro-life congressman and marchers in attendance.  This is awesome! This truly gives me hope, that this unconscionable and horrific law -Roe v. Wade - will be overturned.  I have attended the March For Life many times in the past and it is truly a wonderful experience. I wish I could have attended the event today but unfortunately certain circumstances prevented that from happening.  Abortion is murder. It is unconscionable that our great nation would sanction the horror of this holocaust, called abortion.  It is extremely sad that many have and will continue to kill unborn babies out of pure selfishness and have refused to give our most vulnerable the chance to live their lives to the fullest.  Abortion is a second slavery. In my opinion this is worse than the first sanctioned slavery in this nation because of the fact that since 1973 pro-abortion persons have been preying on those who are unable to speak for themselves and murdering them. These murders must stop!!   We pray especially today, but each and every day, that God will protect every unborn child from the threat of death, from abortion.

The March For Life started out with a huge Mass today, packed with thousands of teenagers.  It is wonderful that more than 27000 tickets secured tickets for the morning concert, pep rally, and Mass.   Rev. Mark Ivany pointed out that "The greatest difference between other civil rights movements and this one is that most of the people affected by Roe v. Wade can't march on Washington." 

Here is part of Mother Teresa's address at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994:  

I am so used to seeing the smiles on our people, even the dying ones smile. And Sister said: "This is the way it is nearly everyday. They are expecting, they are hoping that a son or daughter will come to visit them. They are hurt because they are forgotten." And see, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our own family we have somebody who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is feeling worried. Are we there? Are we willing to give until it hurts in order to be with our families, or do we put our own interests first? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, especially as we begin this year of the family. We must remember that love begins at home and we must also remember that 'the future of humanity passes through the family.'

I was surprised in the West to see so many young boys and girls given to drugs. And I tried to find out why. Why is it like that, when those in the West have so many more things than those in the East? And the answer was: 'Because there is no one in the family to receive them.' Our children depend on us for everything - their health, their nutrition, their security, their coming to know and love God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope and expectation. But often father and mother are so busy they have no time for their children, or perhaps they are not even married or have given up on their marriage. So their children go to the streets and get involved in drugs or other things. We are talking of love of the child, which is were love and peace must begin. These are the things that break peace.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today - abortion which brings people to such blindness.

And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere - "Let us bring the child back." The child is God's gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things - to love and to be loved. In this year of the family we must bring the child back to the center of our care and concern. This is the only way that our world can survive because our children are the only hope for the future. As older people are called to God, only their children can take their places.

But what does God say to us? He says: "Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of my hand." We are carved in the palm of His hand; that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception and is called by God to love and loved, not only now in this life, but forever. God can never forget us.

The beautiful gift God has given our congregation is to fight abortion by adoption. We have already, from our house in Calcutta, over 3,000 children adoption. And I can't tell you what joy, what love, what peace those children have brought into those families. It has been a real gift of God for them and for us. I remember one of the little ones was very sick, so I sent for the father and the mother and I asked them: "Please give me back the sick child. I will give you a healthy one." And the father looked at me and said, "Mother Teresa, take my life first than take the child." So beautiful to see it--so much love, so much joy that little one has brought into that family. So pray for us that we continue this beautiful gift. And also I offer you--our Sisters are here--anybody who doesn't want the child, please give it to me. I want the child.

I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption - by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: "Please don't destroy the child; we will take the child." So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: "Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child." And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child - but I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child. Jesus said, "Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me." By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus but, by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.

Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love and joy. I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gifts of love in him or her.In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.

I also know that there are great problems in the world - that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. And this is whathappens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion.

The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said: "You people who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach us natural family planning because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other." And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich.

When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread. But a person who is shut out, who feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person who has been thrown out of society - that spiritual poverty is much harder to overcome. And abortion, which often follows from contraception, brings a people to be spiritually poor, andthat is the worst poverty and the most difficult to overcome.

Those who are materially poor can be very wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition. I told the Sisters: "You take care of the other three; I will take care of the one who looks worse." So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was such a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, as she said one word only: "thank you" - and she died.

I could not help but examine my conscience before her. And I asked: "What would I say if I were in her place?" And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said: "I am hungry, I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain," or something. But she gave me much more - she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face. Then there was the man we picked up from the drain, half eaten by worms and, after we had brought him to the home, he only said, "I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die as an angel, loved and cared for." Then, after we had removed all the worms from his body, all he said, with a big smile, was: "Sister, I am going home to God" - and he died. It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without comparing anything. Like an angel - this is the greatness of people who are spiritually rich even when they are materially poor.

We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we must bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together, stays together. There is so much hatred, so much misery, and we with our prayer, with our sacrifice, are beginning at home. Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how much love we put into what we do.

If we are contemplatives in the heart of the world with all its problems, these problems can never discourage us. We must always remember what God ells us in Scripture: "Even if a mother could forget the child in her womb" - something impossible, but even if she could forget - "I will never forget you."

And so here I am talking with you. I want you to find the poor here, right in your own home first. And begin love there. Be that good news to your own people first. And find out about your next-door neighbors. Do you know who they are?

I had the most extraordinary experience of love of neighbor with a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said: "Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something." So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children - their eyes shining with hunger. I don't know if you have ever seen hunger. But I have seen it very often. And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her and went out. When she came back, I asked her: "Where did you go? What did you do?" And she gave me a very simple answer: "They are hungry also." What struck me was that she knew - and who are they? A Muslim family - and she knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening because I wanted them, Hindus and Muslims, to enjoy the joy of sharing.

But there were those children, radiating joy, sharing the joy and peace with their mother because she had the love to give until it hurts. And you see this is where love begins - at home in the family.

So, as the example of this family shows, God will never forget us and there is something you and I can always do. We can keep the joy of loving Jesus in our hearts, and share that joy with all we come in contact with. Let us make that one point - that no child will be unwanted, unloved, uncared for, or killed and thrown away. And give until it hurts - with a smile.

As you know, we have a number of homes here in the United States, where people need tender love and care. This is the joy of sharing. Come and share. We have the young people suffering with AIDS. They need that tender love and care. But such beautiful--I've never yet seen a young man or anybody displeased or angy or frightened, really going home to God. Such a beautiful smile, always. So let us pray that we have the gift of sharing the joy with others and giving until it hurts.

Because I talk so much of giving with a smile, once a professor from the United States asked me: "Are you married?" And I said: "Yes, and I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse, Jesus, because He can be very demanding - sometimes." This is really something true. And this is where love comes in - when it is demanding, and yet we can give it with joy.

One of the most demanding things for me is travelling everywhere - and withnpublicity. I have said to Jesus that if I don't go to heaven for anything else, I will be going to heaven for all the travelling with all the publicity, because it has purified me and sacrificed me and made me really ready to go home to God.

If we remember that God loves us, and that we can love others as He loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world. From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak - the unborn child - must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. 

Mother Teresa's entire address is here. 

Catholic Pro-Abort Politicians Need to Shape Up or Ship Out

H/T Confessions of a Thirty-Something Cybertronian 

Rep. Steve King Says Jesus Had Right To Life At Conception

Amazing! A politician in D.C. willing to speak Truth.  God Bless Rep. Steve King for standing up for the unborn, the innocent vulnerable, the voiceless.

H/T Gun Lovin' Alaskan Catholic Club

Why George W. Bush is Pro-Life

From The Deacon's Bench:
 This is one excerpt from former President George Bush's new book, Decision Points.

The most startling anecdote he shared was the story of his mother's miscarriage during his teenage years, when he says he drove Barbara to the hospital while she held her unborn fetus in a jar.

Bush says he included the story "to show how my mom and I developed a relationship," but admits the jarring experience had a lifelong impact on his political beliefs.

"She says to her teenage kid, 'Here's a fetus,'" the pro-life President recounted to Lauer. "No question it - that affected me - my philosophy that we should respect life...There was a human life, a little brother or sister."

I would say that this must have been a most impressionable experience for him. God Bless former President George W. Bush.